"The seller is liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists when the goods are delivered to the consumer and which arises within a period of two years from delivery. However, the lack of conformity cannot be accepted if, at the moment of conclusion of the contract of sale, the consumer knew or could not reasonably have been unaware of the lack of conformity."
But I'm pretty sure, and IANAL, that it doesn't really say that. My initial instinct is that if the goods can reasonably be expected to be of a class that may ordinarily fail within the 2 years then they are still in conformity with the contract of sale. Thus if you paid £50 for a TV then you'd kinda expect it to fail and so it conforms, if you paid £5000 then you wouldn't expect it to fail so early failure would lead to lack of conformity ...
Perhaps I'm too cynical.
I have had use for it for a printer and a portable CD player. The extra warranty was about +10% of the product price, and they said it covered "anything, including kids dropping it on the floor or you spilling coffee on it".
Unsurprisingly, the CD player lid stopped working because the kids managed to knock it off a shelf. I took it back to the outlet and got a new one with no paperwork or questions asked.
A few months later the printer broke down because my hamster defecated severely into the paper feeder mechanism. This, too, was replaced with no cost to me.
Of course, those selling the insurance know the numbers best so it generally works to their advantage, which (in association with consumers who lose / forget their warranties) is a big revenue boon to retailers, as you note.
Recognising when you are an edge case helps - I always buy extended warranties on microwaves, because I'm a once-a-month-cooker who therefore uses the microwave a LOT more than the average consumer, and that bet has paid off for me several times now.
I actually think it is one of the rare cases where the extended warranty may be a loss leader. I only by major appliances from Sears due to their service, and tell my family to do the same.
In fact, I once thought I hadn't renewed a warranty on my fridge, when it went bad. After the repair guy was done fixing it and gave me my quote, I handed him my credit card to pay for it. After 30s he hands it back and says, "You have almost a year left on warranty." I had gotten the years mixed up.
“Comet has sought and received legal advice from leading counsel to support its view that the production of recovery discs did not infringe Microsoft’s intellectual property.
“Comet firmly believes that it acted in the very best interests of its customers. It believes its customers had been adversely affected by the decision to stop supplying recovery discs with each new Microsoft Operating System based computer. Accordingly Comet is satisfied that it has a good defence to the claim and will defend its position vigorously.”
I have updated the article to reflect this.
I thought the PC manufacturers were the ones that used to give out recovery discs and not MS?
I'd imagine a certain amount of money will change hands and hasty apology made before the issue quickly disappears, especially considering Comet is currently being sold to another company.
I actually support Comet in this case - I think they're doing the right thing by their users - but I suspect legally MS have got them banged to rights.
Comet seem to say that as manufacturers stopped packaging computer's with CD's they decided to make their own.
Assuming this is true. Each computer had a valid Windows license. Comet decided to burn the CD's itself so users didn't have to try to make their own recovery disks.
I don't seem the harm. I mean.. users can make their own recovery disc's anyway can't they? Comet was just saving them a step?
If Comet felt that their customer were not getting a good deal and that Microsoft was monopolistic, there are other recourse in law, which do not involve violating copyrights.
That said there is a question whether they were providing them free or at a cost.
I always buy PCs that are pre-built from components and usually get an OEM disc of windows thrown in, but I gather if you buy a branded PC from a shop you are in the same boat as the laptops.
You expect this sort of thing if you go to the Bowlers computer fair, but not at Comet!
Think I've missed something and the title seems a little misleading. Comet haven't been selling dodgy Windows knockoffs, just giving their (non-techy) customers a way to recover their (expensive) PC when (not if) it goes wrong.
It would be reasonable for them to charge a small fee for the disc and burning, as long as they made it clear the customer didn't have to buy it from them and that they could make this same CD at home.
I think Microsoft need to defend their IP, but not at the expense of a business trying to provide a genuine customer service. A conversation, rather than a court filing, may have been more appropriate in this case, especially as Comet has no money.
Comet apparently took it upon themselves to burn these disks for their customers, and this seems to be what Laptops Direct are doing as well, albeit charging for the privilege. If Laptops Direct have an agreement with Microsoft, then fair enough.
The average computer user won't think to burn a recovery disk until it's too late, hence the conundrum.
